So often the basic Conspiracy Theory argument is framed in an essentially pointless and destructive cycle:
* First, the theorist proposes that there existed specific collusion between various individuals or groups on the grounds that something horrible happened.
* Then, the debunker comes in and uses The Razor to argue persuasively that specific collusion between all of the named indiviuals and groups in precisely the manner described is unlikely and can therefore be discounted. And thus, everything is OK.
But you know what? Things aren't OK. The entire premise of the first argument is that something horrible happened, and the second argument doesn't refute that at all. It's just a disguised ad hominem attack. Yoour conclusion does not follow from your premises, therefore you're a bad person, therefore your premises are false. That's bullshit.
This argument is nonsensical. First off, the argument refutes a specific premise, making his conclusion shaky. The next two assertions you list aren't really made unless the rebuttal "You were wrong about the collusion, therefore you are ALWAYS wrong" is made.
1. Any particular conversation that you have no direct evidence of is unlikely to have occurred.
2. You have no direct testimony of Kissinger speaking with Atta.
3. Therefore it is unlikely that Kissinger and Atta had a conversation about Atta's long term plans to kill Americans.
It IS an invalid argument. .except 2 is "Where is your FACTS" No evidence,
no argument.(Incidently, I would have been happy with verifable indirect evidnce.)
"Kissinger's contribution was vital to the success of 9/11 and both he and his allies profitted from it."
Breaking this down.
A. Kissinger's contribution was vital to the success of 9/11 <- unproven.
B. both he and his allies profitted from it. <- too vague.
In short.. this post contains nothing that proves your point.
ETA: Congrats, Frank. You're about as bad as P.. no, you post actual arguments. NEVERMIND.
So, tearing into these. I'll try to remain civil, though.
But I can say that "The Doc" came up with basically horse shit and I don't respect his argument style. It's pretty clear that Pdoherty "won" that debate considering how often The Doc was forced to fall back to the tired remember the firefighters! line of appeal to emmotion.
That's not an argument to emotion. It';s an argument to force Pdohetry to admit they were complicit or not. That simple.
So that seems to be the way of it for the yutzes at JREF. Apparently you get props there for "debunking", so basically people sit around being negative. I'm sure that they'd come out against such "conspiracy theories" as:
Ad hom. [1]
* RJ Reynolds kept a lid on scientific research linking tobacco with deadly diseases for years in order to make money selling a known deadly and addictive product to children.
That is an actual conspiracy. As such, it is not debated in the COnspiracy
Theory forum. More in the History and Poltiics forum. Strawman [2]
* The Japanese Empire captured thousands of Korean women and forced them into sex slavery in order to keep up the morale of their soldiers and bind those soldiers to the fate of the empire to encourage them to fight to the death in its defense.
See above. See note [3]. (Strawman [2])
Seriously, some "conspiracies" are in fact real. Arguing against a theory requires fact. You can't just fall back on Occam's Razor and say "Nuh-uh!" over and over again. That doesn't make you a skeptic, that makes you a luddite!
See above.
Occam's Razor is a powerful tool. It allows you to discount conclusions without enough supporting premises. It allows you to not believe in the possible on the grounds that it is unlikely. But it doesn't allow you to ignore facts. If someone has a fact, you can't use Occam's Razor to doubt the fact, only to doubt unlikely conclusions that fact makes possible.
Actually, JREF's CT forum (and this is a subforum, which I will tackle later) usually ends up pointing the facts are inerror, not hte conclusions. WIth no facts, you hae no argument..
---
So really, the people at JREF are idiots. Spiteful, horrible, morons. They don't do what they claim to be doing, they just stand around making asses of themselves. Any time someone does present a possible conspiracy theory, the fools at JREF apparently just circle jerk themselves with a bunch of ad hominem attacks.
CT forum is a subforum, other boards aren't enarly as heated and more welcoming. Just not of people who ad hom.. more on that later.
The JREF forums are the intellectual equivalent of a bunch of frat boys sitting around saying "Hurr Hurr Hurr". But it's worse than that. It's worse because they present themselves as being Skeptics in the modern sense of people looking at available facts to determine likely conclusions and unlikely conclusions, to limit their claims to those modest ones which can be proven and to limit their beliefs to those possibilities which are considered probable. But actually they are just Cynics in the Ancient Greek sense of a bunch of filthy naked men who run around biting people.
What a waste.
-Username17
Ad hom central. [1] Seriously, what are you implying here? We're ignoring facts because you think the ones presented are true when they aren't? To queque?
[1] Excellent debate tactic when you cant' refute arguments, apparently
[2] YOu do this a lot, too
[3] This is a particulary vile insult, people people on the level of Holocaust revionists. But, apparently, you can't really seem to win an argument without getting insulting. Or lose one and insult in the blind hope someone responds in rage.
-- Tokorona
)